Awards

Monday, October 21, 2013

As Bob Filner, San Diego’s former progressive mayor, pleads guilty to charges stemming from his attacks on women, his essay, “Why I am Pro-Choice” still decorates the website of Planned Parenthood.

A year ago, Filner had appeared at a Planned Parenthood rally while running for mayor of
California’s second largest city to accuse his opponent of being part of the war on women.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund had sent out a letter saying that “for twenty years, Bob Filner has defended women”. At the rally, attendees were told that he had spent “the last twenty years protecting our rights and the rights of women everywhere.”

But while Filner was protecting women, no one was protecting women from Filner. Filner’s behavior was well known, but not commented on. The California Democratic Party maintained its red wall of silence around the son of a Communist, a Freedom Rider and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus because he was one of their own.

Even Filner’s disgrace hasn’t changed that. Filner pleaded guilty to three counts and will not serve any time in prison. Instead he’ll spend three months at home, receive some counseling and three years on probation.

He won’t go into California’s 100,000 strong sex offender database; even though if there’s anyone in the entire state who belongs there, it’s him. Filner probably deserves to join the 1 in 375 adults in California on that list more than Donald Honan who was only convicted of indecent exposure.

Meanwhile in Lakeland, California, a 75-year-old man was sentenced to six months in jail for groping a court reporter. If Anthony Duruh had been the progressive mayor of San Diego, he might have also gotten the Filner Justice Special and be spending his time at home with his feet up on the couch.

In the Democratic Party, as with American Express, membership has its privileges. The same liberal political establishment that protected Filner throughout his career is still covering for him.

At the Planned Parenthood rally, Filner had said, “The war on women can be done at any level. My opponent won’t even fill out the Planned Parenthood questionnaire.” The crowd booed and then cheered when Filner told them about winning twenty-five elections with the backing of Planned Parenthood.

Filner’s opponent, a gay Republican who was for abortion, gay marriage and legalizing pot, had enrolled in the war on women by failing to fill out a questionnaire while Filner, who had molested everyone from grandmothers to sexual abuse victims, was an official protector of women because he had checked the right box on an abortion organization’s questionnaire.

The war on women can be done on any level, but it so often seems to happen on the level of those most vocal about using “War on Women” rhetoric and painting themselves as the protectors of their victims.

House Democrats voted against the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act which would have cracked down on sex selection abortions that mostly target baby girls. Filner, then still a Congressman, had cast one of the 168 votes against the bill. Those voting to allow the continuing murder of baby girls to go unsanctioned were, like Filner, mostly Democrats.

Filner had a 100 score from NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, for, among other things, voting the right way on that bill. NARAL had come out against the bill because it would limit “some women’s access” and “isolate and stigmatize” African American and Asian women from “exercising their fundamental human right to make and implement decisions about their reproductive lives.”

The fundamental right of women had become the murder of other women. And Bob Filner had been supported and protected in his abuse of women in defense of the fundamental right to murder women.

The contraction of women’s rights into the sphere of abortion produced a wealth of moral absurdities and obscenities; “Destroy the village to save the village” scenarios where the only way to protect women is to kill women and where the protector of women role could fall to a grotesque smirking Cesar Romero wannabe who made Bill Clinton look like a monk who had taken a vow of chastity.

The liberal protectors of women, like Filner, Clinton and Ted Kennedy, often seem like the exact opposite. But as long as they support abortion—all is forgiven, forgotten and drowned in the deepest waters off Martha’s Vineyard.

Despite the occasional mumbled mentions of economic equality, the liberal idea of social improvement for women now consists of little more than the right to kill. That the right to kill is championed by opponents of war and the death penalty makes it all the more perverse. The only real right of women under liberalism is the right to kill their own children.

There was a net loss of 354,000 female jobs during Obama’s term and the income of single mothers fell 7 percent. Obama, who opposed the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, has not done anything meaningful for women economically. Like Bob Filner, his credentials as a general on the right side in the War on Women is his enthusiastic support for the same organization whose questionnaire Bob Filner filled out and his opponent didn’t; an organization that works for the cause of death, not life.

What does the War on Women really look like?

Abortion in Sweden is legal until the eighteenth week of pregnancy. There are 20 abortions for every 1000 women and 25 abortions for every 100 pregnancies. Sweden also has the second highest rate of sexual assaults after South Africa.

From 2003 to 2008, Sweden’s sexual assault rate doubled to 53 rapes per 100,000 people. The numbers are now so bad that some forecasts indicate that 1 in 4 Swedish women will be raped in their lifetimes.

Police statistics show that as much of 77% of rapes were carried out by foreign born rapists. As much as 5 percent of Sweden is now Muslim. Around the same time that Sweden’s rape statistics were doubling, so was its Muslim population.

In Stockholm, six Muslim teenagers who raped a 15-year-old Swedish girl were given 100 hours of community service. One of the rapists described himself as a “proud Muslim” and was no doubt aware of the rather forgiving attitude of his religion toward the rape of non-Muslim women and girls.

But this real war on women can’t be discussed because of its leftist perpetrators who fill a country with rapists and then offer their victims easy access to abortion.

Around the same time that Filner was making his preparations to run for mayor, Imperial County, the area bordering Mexico with a heavily Mexican population that had been added to his district, saw an increase in rapes. But most rapes there went unreported.
In 2008, rapes in San Diego had increased 34 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Latinos in San Diego had increased by 21%. Filner had been the chief beneficiary of that demographic shift which allowed him to become the first Democratic mayor of San Diego in a generation.

Since 2000, Filner had run in a majority Latino district scoring decisive victories. During the mayoral race, Filner supporters had dubbed him “Roberto Filner” and chanted "Bob, si puedas”; a version of Obama’s “Yes we can”. And Filner had boasted that the Latino vote would be his margin of victory in the election. While Filner’s lead was not that tremendous among Latinos, it was more than double among foreign-born voters.

Filner had co-sponsored an amnesty bill back in 2007. He had opposed building a border fence and at an interfaith ceremony, had called amnesty a “holy cause”. And illegal alien activists returned the favor. Enrique Morones of Border Angels took the lead in defending Filner even long after the facts were in.

The entire pyramid of liberal identity politics was trotted out in defense of a serial predator.
Meanwhile rape cases in California had increased by 7 percent

"I've been in the forefront of the great social issues of our time--civil rights, anti-war, labor, the environment, women's rights," Filner had said while running for office "I've been there with you and for you, and will continue to be there."

And that is exactly the problem.

Bob Filner wasn’t just guilty of a one man war on women. Like so many liberal politicians, he had championed policies that led to sexual assaults on a much larger scale than any individual could be capable of. And he did it all while winning the female voters and posturing as a protector of women.

The left won the war on women in Sweden. It is winning the war on women in California.

12
comments:

Thank you for tireless efforts in support of what's left of our Republic.

I wanted to add to your brilliant coverage of the odious Bob Filner, this item from Fox News: ... "in exchange for his resignation, the city agreed to pay Filner's legal fees in a joint defense of the lawsuit, and cover any settlement costs assessed against the mayor except for punitive damages. The city -- as required by state law -- will also defend Filner against legal actions stemming from other alleged sexual harassment said to have occurred during his nine months in office as mayor."

So that the taxpayers will pick up all expenses and liabilities arising from Filners crimes? To me this is the " rest of the story"!

Just more of the same from the American Left. Protect the rapists, leave the victim defenseless. In the 2012 Presidential election, we saw the Left claim Romney was forever tied to the comments of some obscure Republican candidate that said something stupid. Well, every Liberal now needs to be tied forever to the likes of Filner, Carlos Danger, Bill Clinton, Teddy "Chappaquiddick", and Gary Studs. This is what these people stand for, the Democrat Party is the Party of Caligula.

The cult of abortion reminds me of the ancient practice especially in Canaan of child sacrifice. The biblical account didn't make sense to me until I find out that archeology showed that the child was often buried within the home to "protect" the rest of the family and its material wealth. Then it did. It wasn't seen as a completely religious act but as a practical measure with positive economic benefits.

Abortion functions the same way. It guarantees that a white woman of European descent won't have to see another life as equal to her own. It is a fetus and not a child. It can be sacrificed at any time to her material well-being. Abortion protesting is the pagan act in which a child is sublimated to the desires of the living. It has nothing to do with the protection of women as a group because that would necessarily mean all life is precious. In the world of the Left some lives are more precious than others.

"... the ancient practice especially in Canaan of child sacrifice. The biblical account didn't make sense to me until I find out that archeology showed that the child was often buried within the home to "protect" the rest of the family and its material wealth. Then it did..." I still don't get it. IUnless "Anonymous" is afraid to say the "sacrificed" children were aborted, unwanted babies? The "Bible" suggests the sacrifices were called for by religious and civil leaders; that doesn't surprise me.

These Progressives have been so "programmed", they can ignore all reality; all that matters is that they feel good about themselves for "meaning well". There is no morality other than good intentions, How can humans be so inhuman? That is the true tragedy; man, the animal, is capable of any inhumanity.Regards,

"Over the past three decades the world has come to witness an ominous and entirely new form of gender discrimination: sex-selective feticide, implemented through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of information gained through prenatal gender determination technology. All around the world, the victims of this new practice are overwhelmingly female—in fact, almost universally female." "Sex-selective abortion is by now so widespread and so frequent that it has come to distort the population composition of the entire human species." (Nicholas Eberstadt, Ph.D, "A Global War Against Baby Girls")

Denis let me explain my thinking. How could sacrificing one's own child provide positive benefit? The children suffered and humans naturally want their children to live and live without pain. How would someone find religious comfort in such a thing? When I found out the purpose was for the child's soul to overlook and protect the material goods of the household it then made perfect sense. The child sacrifice could be regarded as having an ongoing positive benefit for the family and on some level you could rationalize that it is better that the child die than experience hunger, want, etc. The child's life was not seen as having a sacred life given by his/her Creator but instead was simply a part of a greater social and economic order. This is the abortion argument. A family is a sensible thing for the pleasure of those who start it. If the mother decides that she can't nurture a future professional, etc who will give her status and pleasure and keep her family name safely in what she believes is where it deserves to be the fetus is better off dead. Killing the baby is rationalized as not a cold act. It is an act that allows for better material benefit in the future. If she raises a college graduate in the future who goes on to a great career her decision is justified in her mind and in the mind of materialists. Why was using stem cells from fetuses such a big cause for the Left? It was a great cause for them because it clearly demonstrated what the issues were from their point of view. They saw it as a superstitious belief in the sacredness of life versus a clear material benefit. What is the difference morally between Moloch worship and the belief fetuses pave the way to medical breakthroughs? In each case a child pays the price.of material gain.

Neither truth nor facts have hindered or reduced the efficacy of the Democrat messaging machine because its targets are governed by their sentiments. The sonogram has been our most effective counterargument against abortion because the image of a small human inside a womb evokes strong sentiments. It's a baby if its mother wants it or a lump of flesh otherwise? OK, look at this sonogram of your baby, or if you like, your lump of flesh.

Pointing out patent hypocrisies won't work for our side because it doesn't engender the right sentiments. Democrats believe they're good people and we are bad people. The counterargument is not, "We are not bad people - you are," but rather, "We could all be better people."

abortion is a homosexual movement...what was missing in the Biblical story of Sodom? Children! Abraham couldn't have the child he so desperately wanted until Sodom's destruction...Lot had to breed with his daughters! What the homosexuals do is to deceive the woman, get her to rebel against G-d and her man...notice we have a gender war going on? Wake up America!